Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch US live weekdays at
Speaker 1: noon and five pm Eastern on Apple, Cockley and Android
Speaker 1: Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts, or watch US live on YouTube.
Speaker 2: But talk today, frankly, is what happened in Riod in
Speaker 2: the early hours Eastern time this morning. A meeting between
Speaker 2: US and Russian officials to discuss the future of the
Speaker 2: war in Ukraine, or perhaps more specifically, an end to
Speaker 2: that war, which the US State Department says they want
Speaker 2: to see happen as soon as possible. At these talks,
Speaker 2: obviously Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, a number of emissaries
Speaker 2: from the US as well, Mike Waltz, the National Security Advisor,
Speaker 2: Steve Witkoff, who is the Special Envoy for the Middle East,
Speaker 2: not notably the Special Envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, and
Speaker 2: then of course Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who had
Speaker 2: this to stay from Saudi Arabia earlier.
Speaker 3: We're going to appoint a high level team from our
Speaker 3: end to help negotiate and walk work through the end
Speaker 3: of the conflict in Ukraine in a way that's enduring
Speaker 3: and acceptable to all the parties engaged. The third point
Speaker 3: is to begin to work at a high level as well,
Speaker 3: to begin to discuss and think about and examine both
Speaker 3: the geopolitical and economic cooperation that could result from an
Speaker 3: end to the conflict in Ukraine.
Speaker 4: That's where we start a conversation with Jennifer Kavanaugh, back
Speaker 4: with a senior fellow, director of Military Analysis at Defense
Speaker 4: Priorities and co author of the book Truth Decay, an
Speaker 4: initial exploration of the diminishing role of facts and analysis
Speaker 4: in American public life. Jennifer, it's great to see you.
Speaker 4: Welcome back to Bloomberg TV and Radio. There's been a
Speaker 4: lot of criticism, as you might expect surrounding such a
Speaker 4: sensitive interaction like this first meeting. Much has been said
Speaker 4: about who is not at the table. What's your thought
Speaker 4: of about the way this is starting. Is this a
Speaker 4: positive move or not?
Speaker 5: I do think it's a positive move. It's the first
Speaker 5: time that there's been a high level meeting like this
Speaker 5: between the United States and Russia since the war started
Speaker 5: almost three years ago now, and any negotiation is going
Speaker 5: to take a lot of rounds of talks, and it
Speaker 5: makes sense that the United States and Russia would start
Speaker 5: by dealing with some of their bilateral issues. That does
Speaker 5: not mean that Ukraine should be excluded for all the
Speaker 5: rounds of talks, but certainly the United States and Russia
Speaker 5: have a long history of tense and difficult relationships, and
Speaker 5: there are a lot of bilateral issues that the two
Speaker 5: countries need to work out before they even sit down
Speaker 5: at the table with the other parties, to work through
Speaker 5: the tough issues surrounding the war in Ukraine and the
Speaker 5: relationship between Russia and the rest of Europe. So, as
Speaker 5: you heard Secretary Rubio say in the clip you played,
Speaker 5: you know, a big piece of this is thinking about
Speaker 5: the future of US Russia relationships. So I see this
Speaker 5: first meeting as sort of setting the foundation for future talks.
Speaker 5: And it makes sense that the United States and Russia,
Speaker 5: which are both two major nuclear powers, would start that
Speaker 5: off together alone before inviting the rest of the parties in.
Speaker 2: But does this not also set the foundation for a
Speaker 2: deal that could end up being more favorable to Russia
Speaker 2: given some of the rhetoric we're hearing, than to Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Who wasn't there.
Speaker 5: I don't necessarily think that any decisions were made today
Speaker 5: about how.
Speaker 6: The war would end.
Speaker 5: Today. It seems like the key outcome was the appointing
Speaker 5: high level negotiating teams to work through those issues. So
Speaker 5: no decisions about Ukraine were made without Ukraine today. It
Speaker 5: was more decisions about process and how the process might unfold.
Speaker 5: I would agree certainly that any decision that deals specifically
Speaker 5: with the war Ukraine should be a party to, and
Speaker 5: I think that anyone who's working in the Trump administration
Speaker 5: who really does want a lasting piece would also want
Speaker 5: Ukraine at the table. Research shows that no peace settlements
Speaker 5: that are imposed on countries the countries are forced to
Speaker 5: sign rarely endure. So if the goal here is to
Speaker 5: have a lasting piece, which it seems like it is,
Speaker 5: then Ukraine will have to be at the table. So
Speaker 5: I don't see any necessarily any foreboding signs here from
Speaker 5: Ukraine's perspective.
Speaker 4: Well, you did put your finger on something in the
Speaker 4: language that the Secretary of State was using.
Speaker 6: There this idea.
Speaker 4: Of potentially more comprehensive talks involving, as Marco Rubio put it,
Speaker 4: both the geopolitical and economic cooperation that could result from
Speaker 4: an end of the conflict.
Speaker 6: So what are we talking about here?
Speaker 4: Is this exon mobile and McDonald's going back to Beijing
Speaker 4: or should I say Moscow rather.
Speaker 5: It could be I think the key things are Number One,
Speaker 5: this war was in the approximate terms, about Ukraine, but
Speaker 5: also about Russia's security concerns. There's a debate about wether
Speaker 5: those are legitimate or not, but Russia does have concerns
Speaker 5: about having NATO right up on its border, and it
Speaker 5: made it clear before the war that it wanted to
Speaker 5: have at least discussions about the security architecture and the
Speaker 5: relationship between NATO and Russia. And so I see in
Speaker 5: Secretary rubio statement and indication that that will be something that
Speaker 5: the two parties discuss, or the four parties or however
Speaker 5: many parties are at the table. And then on the
Speaker 5: economic piece, I think there's a recognition coming from Secretary
Speaker 5: Rubio and the US team that sanctions, the very stiff
Speaker 5: and extensive sanctions that the United States and its allies
Speaker 5: and partners have placed on Russia since the beginning of
Speaker 5: the war, that some of those sanctions will have to
Speaker 5: be rolled back, maybe not all at once, but that
Speaker 5: in the long term future a stable relationship between the
Speaker 5: United States and Russia and NATO and Russia will have
Speaker 5: to have those sanctions removed at least over a period
Speaker 5: of time. And so that's what I see is sort
Speaker 5: of the economic piece that there has to be some
Speaker 5: reopening of these economic relationships.
Speaker 2: Yeah, remarkable to see today Marco Rubio sitting across the
Speaker 2: table from Sergey Lavrov, who personally is under sanctioned by
Speaker 2: the US government. But that is exactly why Rubio was
Speaker 2: talking about the need for a European cooperation here in
Speaker 2: that Europe also has sanctions on Russia, so will have
Speaker 2: to be involved if you're a leader in a European
Speaker 2: capital right now, Jennifer facing down the prospect of not
Speaker 2: only being excluded from the talks today, but having to
Speaker 2: rethink defense posturing because of the signal of a US
Speaker 2: pullback in many of those areas you were just alluding to,
Speaker 2: especially those countries right on the front when it comes
Speaker 2: to NATO. What are you thinking right now?
Speaker 5: I mean, this has been a challenge for European leaders
Speaker 5: for some time now, is the sort of unwillingness to
Speaker 5: recognize the changing attitude in the United States towards continuing
Speaker 5: to have this all encompassing security guarantee to its European partners.
Speaker 5: We heard comments from a number of administration players, whether
Speaker 5: it was Secretary of Defense P. Xth or Vice President J.
Speaker 5: D Vance, about, you know, the ways in which they
Speaker 5: were looking for Russia to step up. And I do
Speaker 5: think that there was a change in tone in the
Speaker 5: administration to point out that it's not just that the administration,
Speaker 5: the Trump administration, is looking for Europe to spend more
Speaker 5: under US leadership, but to actually take on that leadership themselves,
Speaker 5: and that's that's there's a difference there. And I think
Speaker 5: we saw the recognition and the urgency felt in Europe
Speaker 5: after that with the summit yesterday in Paris, but the
Speaker 5: results were kind of lackluster. So, if you know, if
Speaker 5: I personally am a European leader, I'm trying to figure
Speaker 5: out what do I need to defend myself with no
Speaker 5: US support, because that should be my security goal. I
Speaker 5: don't necessarily see that that level of urgency yet for
Speaker 5: most of Europe. Certainly you see it in the Baltic
Speaker 5: States and in Poland, but those countries can only do
Speaker 5: so much without the rest of Europe behind them.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Poland has made that clear, so Frances it will
Speaker 4: help with peacekeeping troops as well. The uk kere starmer
Speaker 4: those is he wants US military support, it sounds like
Speaker 4: he's not.
Speaker 6: Going to get it.
Speaker 5: This seems unlikely at least right now from what the
Speaker 5: Administration said last week. I mean, the reality is that
Speaker 5: a European whether it's a peacekeeping force or a trip
Speaker 5: wire force of any meaningful size, can't really sustain itself
Speaker 5: without US support, at least in terms of logistics and
Speaker 5: other types of enablers, even if there aren't US boots
Speaker 5: on the ground in Ukraine. The administration comments last week
Speaker 5: weren't all that clear whether or not that support is
Speaker 5: off the table, But there are another other challenges with
Speaker 5: any sort of European security guarantees. So I personally am
Speaker 5: not that confident that a sort of European peacekeeping force
Speaker 5: is a likely outcome of the negotiations, both because of
Speaker 5: feasibility as well as because of what Russia is likely
Speaker 5: to accept. They're not going to be too enthusiastic about
Speaker 5: having a big peacekeeping force or deterrent force of European
Speaker 5: soldiers on their border either or on the de facto border.
Speaker 5: Ukraine that's likely to come from any settlement, So I
Speaker 5: don't really see that as a likely outcome, but certainly
Speaker 5: there will be more talk about it because it's the
Speaker 5: only real alternative to US backed security guarantees that's on
Speaker 5: the table right now.
Speaker 2: All right, Jennifer Kavanaugh, Senior Fellow and Director of Military
Speaker 2: Analysis at Defense Priorities, thank you for joining us here
Speaker 2: on Balance of Power today. Much appreciated. And I do
Speaker 2: Joe just think back to the number of conversations we
Speaker 2: have had with foreign ministers, other European diplomats here at
Speaker 2: this table, especially during the election, about what it would
Speaker 2: mean for Europe infer NATO if Donald Trump were to
Speaker 2: be elected, and now that he's president, after all of
Speaker 2: them essentially telling us we'll work with any administration. I
Speaker 2: do wonder how that tenor might change.
Speaker 4: It's not resulting in much unity at the moments. Italy
Speaker 4: showed up late for the emergency meeting over the weekend,
Speaker 4: ole Off Schultz left early.
Speaker 6: We'll see how things go Wednesday. Reuter says that will
Speaker 6: be the next meeting.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: us Live weekdays at noon and five pm. Eastern on
Speaker 1: Apple Cockley and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 4: We're live from Washington, but we do have our eyes
Speaker 4: on New York, right where Charlie Pellett is sitting, where
Speaker 4: the news really could be focused on later today, as
Speaker 4: the Governor of New York raises questions about the future
Speaker 4: of the Eric Adams administration. We talked about this a
Speaker 4: bit on Friday, when the resignations began from inside the
Speaker 4: Department of Justice over this DOJ order that the corruption
Speaker 4: case against him be dropped that has expanded.
Speaker 7: Now.
Speaker 4: Four of Adams's top deputies announced their resignations over the
Speaker 4: weekend on this push to drop the corruption case in
Speaker 4: apparent exchange for help with Donald Trump's deportation agenda. There
Speaker 4: is talk of a quid now Kathy Hokeel, who as
Speaker 4: you might remember, was in Washington last week, so she's
Speaker 4: weighing the serious step now of removing the mayor.
Speaker 6: How does that happen?
Speaker 4: You say, the city's charter lays it out, and what
Speaker 4: is in fact an untested process which the governor can
Speaker 4: begin by serving the mayor with charges warranting removal. She's
Speaker 4: in meetings today with a lot more to follow here,
Speaker 4: including the city council speaker and controller. They're part of
Speaker 4: the committee that can declare a mayor unable to serve.
Speaker 4: We could be in a situation where things went from
Speaker 4: being very good for Eric Adams to not at all
Speaker 4: under the Trump White House. It's where we start with
Speaker 4: our panel today off the long weekend. Rick Davis, Partner
Speaker 4: at Stone Court Capital, Bloomberg Politics contributor and Republican strategist,
Speaker 4: joined by Democratic analyst Genie Schanzano, Senior Democracy Fellow at
Speaker 4: the Center for the Study of the Presidency in Congress,
Speaker 4: Bloomberg Politics contributor, Genie, This hits close to home for
Speaker 4: you in New York and as a Democrat, is Eric
Speaker 4: Adams going to be the mayor for law?
Speaker 8: You know, it's unclear now. Everybody in democratic politics in
Speaker 8: New York is at that meeting, so we'll have to
Speaker 8: see what they say. And she, the governor, is certainly
Speaker 8: getting a lot of pressure to remove him, but it
Speaker 8: is a bad idea. She chose not to remove him,
Speaker 8: and she is allowed to as you just mentioned via
Speaker 8: city charter when he was indicted in October. So to
Speaker 8: remove him now would be to suggest that she is
Speaker 8: removing him because he cozied up to Donald Trump and
Speaker 8: because they feel that the you know, he is cooperating
Speaker 8: with the federal government as it pertains to immigration. I
Speaker 8: don't like what the Justice Department did. I don't like
Speaker 8: the dropping of the charges. I certainly am not a
Speaker 8: big fan of Eric Adams, nor are many New Yorkers.
Speaker 8: He's at about nine percent. But this would be a
Speaker 8: historic move by a New York governor. Two hundred and
Speaker 8: thirty five years, we've never seen this, and so to
Speaker 8: do it now would be to open a Pandora's box
Speaker 8: in terms of what a mayor could or couldn't be
Speaker 8: removed for.
Speaker 9: What do you think of this?
Speaker 4: Rick Governor Hokel says, the alleged conduct at City Hall
Speaker 4: that has been reported over the past two weeks is
Speaker 4: troubling and cannot be ignored.
Speaker 6: Will she remove the mayor? Well, you know, it's hard
Speaker 6: to tell.
Speaker 10: I mean, does she really feel like she's got the leverage.
Speaker 6: To be able to do it?
Speaker 10: I kind of agree with Genie. I mean, if she
Speaker 10: was going to do that. She probably should have done
Speaker 10: it when he was indicted, said resigner or get kicked out,
Speaker 10: and then she should have kicked him out and we
Speaker 10: would have been spared all this quid pro quo talk
Speaker 10: and losing the leadership of the Southern District.
Speaker 6: Of New York's Justice Department.
Speaker 10: I mean, like this thing has turned in to a
Speaker 10: circus when you think of all the impact that this
Speaker 10: thing has had on the City of New York, the
Speaker 10: Justice Department, the immigration program, the state of New York,
Speaker 10: the state of the Democratic Party in the City of
Speaker 10: New York. I mean, if Eric Adams doesn't resign based
Speaker 10: on the top four people in his administration walking out
Speaker 10: on him yesterday, then Kathy Holkl should do something. And
Speaker 10: twiddling away at this is only making it worse by
Speaker 10: the day, and that's on her.
Speaker 4: You know, it's not going in a good direction. When
Speaker 4: Adolph Hitler is invoked Eric adams Genie quote. I was
Speaker 4: listening to some of doctor Martin Luther King's teachings and
Speaker 4: he talked about the book Mine comf referencing Adolf Hitler's
Speaker 4: manifesto quote. He said, if you repeat a lie long
Speaker 4: enough loud enough people will believe it is true.
Speaker 6: And that's what you're seeing right now.
Speaker 4: This is a modern day mind comf Where is he
Speaker 4: going with that? Because it doesn't sound like someone is
Speaker 4: about to resign.
Speaker 8: Oh, and he said clearly and that very bizarre speech
Speaker 8: gave yesterday, that he was not going anywhere. Of course,
Speaker 8: that has become sort of practice amongst politicians who are
Speaker 8: accused of improprieties is to just stay, put fight and
Speaker 8: say they are victimized. And this is of course what
Speaker 8: Adams has been saying right along. This is why he
Speaker 8: went down tomorrow lago. This is why he went to
Speaker 8: the inauguration. He's been closing up with Donald Trump because
Speaker 8: Donald Trump has been publicly empathetic with him, saying that
Speaker 8: he has been a victim of an over zealous prosecution.
Speaker 8: You know that said, the timeline here is critically important.
Speaker 8: If she doesn't act to remove him before March twenty six,
Speaker 8: that's ninety days before the primary, we are in an
Speaker 8: election here in New York. There would need to be
Speaker 8: a special election by Jimani Williams, who's the public advocate
Speaker 8: who would become acting mayor on his removal. So there
Speaker 8: are a lot of moving parts here, and you know
Speaker 8: you want to add insult to injury. Look at that
Speaker 8: Fox interview with Tom Holman on Friday and Eric Adams
Speaker 8: where Tom Holman is joking about laughing, I don't know,
Speaker 8: joking about a quid pro quo. I mean, the entire
Speaker 8: thing is ugly. Adams should resign, he looks like he won't,
Speaker 8: and then the governor has lost her chance to remove him.
Speaker 4: Man to be a New York Republican once again, Rick,
Speaker 4: I don't know. But if Kathy Hokle removes the mayor
Speaker 4: from office, knowing that he is close to Donald Trump,
Speaker 4: what does this do for the New York delegation that
Speaker 4: was already on thin ice here when it came to
Speaker 4: so many issues.
Speaker 6: Including salt. This is a tough room to be a Republican,
Speaker 6: Rick Davis.
Speaker 10: Yeah, this is not your grandfather's Republican Party for sure,
Speaker 10: and I think that they have to act on their
Speaker 10: own interests. In other words, what do they think is
Speaker 10: good for the state of New York, for the country.
Speaker 10: And lastly, you know you can slot in there something
Speaker 10: for the Republican Party if you can still recognize it.
Speaker 10: But look, I mean, this is the trouble here. I mean,
Speaker 10: you know, if you don't think it was a quid
Speaker 10: pro quote, watch that Fox interview with.
Speaker 6: Tom Holman in the Mayor.
Speaker 10: I mean, if you don't deliver for Ice, I'm going
Speaker 10: to come to New York and we won't be sitting
Speaker 10: on a couch. I will be up your keister. And
Speaker 10: I'm saying that on a Bloomberg approved boy. I mean, like, really,
Speaker 10: I just can't imagine a scenario that could be worse
Speaker 10: for the administration. But they're gonna get what they want
Speaker 10: right and Kathy Hokle is the only thing that steps
Speaker 10: between them and getting their way. And in the meantime,
Speaker 10: you have a crisis at the Justice Department with you know,
Speaker 10: the senior leadership of the Southern District of New York's
Speaker 10: US Attorney's office walking out because they claim it's a
Speaker 10: quid pro quote and politicize. So, I mean, who are
Speaker 10: you gonna believe your eyes or your ears?
Speaker 6: Unbelievable that you've both brought it up.
Speaker 4: The optics of seeing these two sit together for the
Speaker 4: interview on Fox, even with the sound off, was remarkable.
Speaker 4: What does this mean for Kathy Hockele's reelection Genie.
Speaker 6: This is a very sensitive moment.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean, I think politically she has a lot
Speaker 8: of reason to try to remove Eric Adams because she
Speaker 8: is not popular. She has seen as fairly weak. She was,
Speaker 8: you know, not everybody's first choice for governor. She became
Speaker 8: sort of an accidental governor after we Cuomo resigned or
Speaker 8: was pushed out. And by the way, Culomo is likely
Speaker 8: to be the New York City's next mayor. He certainly
Speaker 8: has a leg up and will announce in March, so
Speaker 8: he's not left for long as well. So she has
Speaker 8: a lot of political reason to do this, but that
Speaker 8: is not enough. If she was going to do it,
Speaker 8: it should have been done in October. She didn't do it.
Speaker 8: And I think, speaking as Rick was about the Justice Department,
Speaker 8: what the Trump administration has done here is preposterous. For
Speaker 8: Emil Bouvet to say that we can't prosecute Eric Adams
Speaker 8: because if we do, he can't carry out the immigration
Speaker 8: raids that we want. Means that you have put an
Speaker 8: end to public corruption in the United States, public corruption investigations,
Speaker 8: because that means any public official charged with public corruption,
Speaker 8: they can't possibly be charged or investigated or removed because
Speaker 8: how could they do their job. Well, the answer is
Speaker 8: they can resign when they are indicted by a grand jury.
Speaker 8: So the preposterousness of what the Trump administration and Emil
Speaker 8: Bovet has done to their very own Justice Department and
Speaker 8: the Office of Public Integrity should not go unnoticed.
Speaker 4: Here amazing analysis from Rick and Genie, and you mentioned
Speaker 4: Andrew Cuomo. Genie, could we be in a world, Rick
Speaker 4: where Donald Trump helps to reform the political careers of
Speaker 4: both Eric Adams and Andrew Cuomo.
Speaker 10: Well, here just letting blog out of jail from Chicago
Speaker 10: and appointed him to a job. So I think this
Speaker 10: is sort of, you know, like he's the Grim Reaper,
Speaker 10: but in reverse he takes you know, politically dead people
Speaker 10: and turns them into superstars. And I don't know, I mean,
Speaker 10: like maybe this is just something he wants to do
Speaker 10: because he felt that he was unfairly prosecuted by the
Speaker 10: legal system. And I kind of get that, right, I mean,
Speaker 10: in his mind all of this was made up, and
Speaker 10: he probably figures everybody who has the same kind of
Speaker 10: thing a political career, either past or present, who are
Speaker 10: being pursued by the Justice Department must be just as innocent.
Speaker 10: As he is, and so that kind of transference makes sense,
Speaker 10: but it doesn't preclude the fact that some of these
Speaker 10: people are guilty as hell and they probably ought to
Speaker 10: be locked up.
Speaker 6: So I don't know.
Speaker 10: I mean, I think that anybody who thinks that he's
Speaker 10: going to make decisions based on the political access or
Speaker 10: failure of the Republicans the Democrats, it's all about whether
Speaker 10: or not it's his success, and that will determine the alcolaes.
Speaker 4: Okay, so Geenie, how long? And so we see Andrew
Speaker 4: Cuomo on the patio at mar A Lago.
Speaker 8: I think it could be imminent. Joe Matthew, you know,
Speaker 8: it looks like he again will announce in March. It's
Speaker 8: all the signs are pointing in that direction, including a
Speaker 8: support from some of his you know, not so long
Speaker 8: ago fierce opponents. So that looks likely. And you know,
Speaker 8: speaking of old people coming back, Anthony Wiener says he
Speaker 8: is running for city council in New York. So no,
Speaker 8: they are all coming back, you know, by let by guns,
Speaker 8: be byguns. And I think the real loser here again
Speaker 8: is the fact that public integrity matters our justice department
Speaker 8: at the federal and state level have to be able
Speaker 8: to investigate on behalf of the public. When we have
Speaker 8: public officials who who have been accused of wrongdoing, the
Speaker 8: idea that you can't charge them because then they won't
Speaker 8: be able to do the bidding of another public official,
Speaker 8: even the president, is the height of irresponsibility. And hopefully
Speaker 8: that is addressed. But I I, you know, looking at
Speaker 8: well Goidovich, looking at all these folks coming back, it
Speaker 8: seems to be public corruption be dammed.
Speaker 6: Well, I guess that's true.
Speaker 4: You know, I don't know what Bloggo thinks about this
Speaker 4: whole thing, but producer James does invoke the name of
Speaker 4: Curtis Sliwa. Rick, is it time to break out the
Speaker 4: red beret here or what?
Speaker 6: I don't know.
Speaker 10: I'm still looking for a Republican who could run in
Speaker 10: all this, because what an opportunity for Republicans in New
Speaker 10: York City.
Speaker 4: You're here, You're the feral cats, Rick Davis and Jeanie
Speaker 4: Shanzino with a conversation we thought we'd never have, but
Speaker 4: I guess we can say that. Every day here on
Speaker 4: this program.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on
Speaker 1: Alma Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
Speaker 1: us live on YouTube.
Speaker 6: You know it feels like on Monday. I hope you
Speaker 6: had a long weekend.
Speaker 4: We're glad you're here on Bloomberg Radio, Satellite radio and YouTube.
Speaker 6: Search Bloomberg Business News Live if you want to find
Speaker 6: our live string.
Speaker 4: We keep a seat for you constantly here in the studio,
Speaker 4: and the cameras are lit. Having survived Valentine's Day massacre,
Speaker 4: that's what they're calling it. After several thousand probationary employees
Speaker 4: across various government departments were fired over the weekend, fired
Speaker 4: by email, fired by voicemail. In some cases, they were
Speaker 4: called in to empty their desks and kiss them goodbye.
Speaker 4: The termination notices hitting over the weekend after a raft
Speaker 4: of executive actions signed by the President. We've talked about
Speaker 4: them in real time, and now we're looking at the fallout.
Speaker 4: Jim Jones, the head of the Food division at the
Speaker 4: US Food and Drug Administration, oversaw the banning of red
Speaker 4: dye number three earlier this.
Speaker 6: Year, which RFK Junior, of course won.
Speaker 4: He stepped down yesterday quit, pointing to the layoffs of
Speaker 4: eighty nine staffers in the Foond division as indiscriminate, fruitless
Speaker 4: for me to continue in this role, says his statement.
Speaker 4: The top official at the Social Security Administration also stepped
Speaker 4: down this weekend after the DOGE went after Social Security.
Speaker 4: Michelle King, the acting commissioner out and the question is
Speaker 4: who's next here. It does appear the FAA is part
Speaker 4: of what's next as they try to envision ways to
Speaker 4: overhaul the air traffic control system and of course lay
Speaker 4: off a lot of people. Union leaders said the FAA
Speaker 4: canned four hundred probationary employees as part of the.
Speaker 6: Valentine's Day massacre. And so now it's on to NASA now.
Speaker 4: The last we checked here considered a national asset by
Speaker 4: both Democrats and Republicans. One of the few bipartisan activities
Speaker 4: in Washington is.
Speaker 6: Feeling good about our space program.
Speaker 4: On Tuesday, Donald Trump signed an executive order saying that
Speaker 4: DOGE would be installed in agencies, including NASA. By Thursday
Speaker 4: of last week. They were on site. Now, We've been
Speaker 4: doing a lot of reporting on this, and I've also
Speaker 4: been following the work of Keith Cowing, who you hear
Speaker 4: and see on this program pretty often whenever we talk
Speaker 4: about the space program, it's usually about something good. When
Speaker 4: we talk to Keith, something good's about to happen. Hard
Speaker 4: to tell this time. Former NASA employee, he's been in
Speaker 4: the agency himself. He's now editor at NASA Watch and
Speaker 4: has been on the forefront of this coverage the downsizing
Speaker 4: of NASA.
Speaker 6: Keith, it's good to have you back. Welcome.
Speaker 4: Have we seen the layoffs we're going to get from
Speaker 4: NASA or is this just the beginning, Because people inside
Speaker 4: the agency are very worried. Meetings are being canceled. They
Speaker 4: don't know if they're going to have a program tomorrow.
Speaker 7: Well, if you look across the government, this is happening everywhere,
Speaker 7: but at NASA, the little agency that I follow, this is.
Speaker 9: Sort of the pregame show.
Speaker 7: Early on when they put these all these executive orders out,
Speaker 7: they said, by the way, identify all the probationary employees
Speaker 7: one or two years, because quote they're the easiest to
Speaker 7: get rid of, or they have the fewest complaints if
Speaker 7: you just let them go for almost any reason. So
Speaker 7: that's now happening, and it's happening in real time. As
Speaker 7: we as we talk right now. After that, though, is
Speaker 7: the main attraction, which is a reduction in force or
Speaker 7: a riff. And that's where they go across a larger
Speaker 7: swath of an agency and really try and dig in
Speaker 7: to get this. You know, pick a number I here,
Speaker 7: ten percent was the ideal, but twenty five percent reduction
Speaker 7: in force and so you're gonna have a lot of
Speaker 7: people who are not in a particularly good place for
Speaker 7: a long time.
Speaker 4: Boy, it sure sounds like it. So this is all right,
Speaker 4: just probationary. Then the real stuff is to follow.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 4: If Donald Trump and the administration here are going for
Speaker 4: twenty five billion dollars in budget cuts when it comes
Speaker 4: time to craft.
Speaker 6: A budget this year, what would that look like? Keith?
Speaker 4: And when you back off, here is the endgame canceling
Speaker 4: the Artemis program.
Speaker 6: What does Elon Musk want to do to NASA?
Speaker 9: I don't know if it's.
Speaker 7: Elon per se as a larger swarm of people that
Speaker 7: are using the Project twenty twenty five and other metrics
Speaker 7: to guide what they're going to do. As far as
Speaker 7: the Artemis program goes. The issue isn't the program going
Speaker 7: back to the moon. It's the big sols. Rocket Boeing
Speaker 7: has sort of gotten a bit of the writing on
Speaker 7: the wall, and they put a war notice out to
Speaker 7: for saying that there might be up to upwards a
Speaker 7: four h or so layoffs. But here's the thing. If
Speaker 7: you start laying off civil servants, you're going to cut
Speaker 7: your budget a little bit, but not a whole bunch,
Speaker 7: because it's really not the biggest part of the federal budget.
Speaker 7: But the knee jerk reaction is that NASA, oh, well,
Speaker 7: we'll just get contractors to do that work. Well, you know,
Speaker 7: you can just fire them with a nasty look.
Speaker 9: You don't even have.
Speaker 7: To go through any procedures other than what's in the contract.
Speaker 6: So ask yourself.
Speaker 7: You put this with, oh, we want to go to
Speaker 7: Mars by twenty twenty five to eight whatever, you're going
Speaker 7: to do that with less people. You know, if it
Speaker 7: was a private sector company, you might get away with that,
Speaker 7: but this is a government agency with government contracts, and
Speaker 7: it's probably going to take them two or three years
Speaker 7: to figure out what's left. Much less not be able
Speaker 7: to do a sprint thing to Mars and to the
Speaker 7: Moon and to build a new space station and all
Speaker 7: the other things that NASA does well.
Speaker 4: And who runs the biggest space contractor in the world
Speaker 4: Keith Right now, apparently.
Speaker 7: It's it's space X with Elon Musk. But you know,
Speaker 7: there's I think people would ask me, you know about this.
Speaker 7: I don't agree necessarily with his political science, but I
Speaker 7: do like his rocket science, and his company has a
Speaker 7: lot of people there that they're just there to build
Speaker 7: rocket ships and explore the universe. So you got to
Speaker 7: kind of parse the personalities here. But at the end
Speaker 7: of the day, it's the White House. You know, elections
Speaker 7: have consequences. It's the people in the news with the names,
Speaker 7: and it's going against the government as a whole. Again,
Speaker 7: poor little NASA just happens to be a little more
Speaker 7: vulnerable because you can't just take too many pieces out
Speaker 7: of the rocket ship because it'll blow up.
Speaker 6: Wow.
Speaker 4: So on January thirty first, Keith NASA paused all activities
Speaker 4: of advisory organizations inside the agency and you can talk
Speaker 4: about these are scientific groups. They focus on planetary science
Speaker 4: and more esoteric fields. The first group affected the Mercury
Speaker 4: Exploration Assessment Group. They're supposed to gather on the fourth
Speaker 4: of February for a couple of days of talks here
Speaker 4: and meetings about some of the planning that they were
Speaker 4: doing here.
Speaker 6: Sixty people set to show up JOHNS.
Speaker 4: Hopkins Applied Physics Research Lab in suburban Washington. This is
Speaker 4: according to the Washington Post. After the DEI orders went
Speaker 4: out from the agency, they try they canceled one topic.
Speaker 4: I guess that was talking about DEI and trying to
Speaker 4: lift up some community who didn't have access to a
Speaker 4: lot of science training. And they thought the meeting was compliant.
Speaker 4: On January thirty first, NASA forced them to cancel the
Speaker 4: entire thing. This is happening across different groups in the agency.
Speaker 4: What does it mean for scientific research, for innovation and
Speaker 4: what actually people want to get out of NASA?
Speaker 7: Well, nothing good, And of course you know again with NASA,
Speaker 7: there's other space agencies. But I just tweeted something, this
Speaker 7: is the most I worked there. It's the most amazing
Speaker 7: group of people. You need to collaborate with each other
Speaker 7: and talk. And then they've touched the Sun, they've gone
Speaker 7: to every planet and we're interstellar space.
Speaker 9: Now.
Speaker 7: You just don't sit down and do that. You have
Speaker 7: to work with these groups, and these advisory committees are
Speaker 7: usually sanity checks like the program managers itself says hey,
Speaker 7: I want to point the telescope here, here, here or there,
Speaker 7: and they say, you know what, you should do this,
Speaker 7: you should do that. Yeah, we think it's good and
Speaker 7: it's just a sanity check, but it's also those people
Speaker 7: are also being paid to do the science, so sting
Speaker 7: these meetings. They're not just you know, if they said hey,
Speaker 7: we're going to go to Zoom, I think all right,
Speaker 7: maybe they're going to save some travel funds. No, they're
Speaker 7: not doing any of these meetings at all. And when
Speaker 7: it comes to the DEEI thing again, you can go
Speaker 7: wherever you are on that position. But NASA has always,
Speaker 7: as an agency, tried to be is inclusive of everybody everywhere,
Speaker 7: even when I was a little kid in the sixties.
Speaker 7: And so you know, if you're over zealous with OAP
Speaker 7: that looks like a word, I can't use it. You
Speaker 7: just slice things off, and that's what's happening.
Speaker 4: What do you think of Jared Isaacman, This is the
Speaker 4: billionaire entrepreneur has actually been to space a couple of
Speaker 4: times because he's extremely wealthy. He's been a customer of
Speaker 4: SpaceX and he's set to run the agency what experience
Speaker 4: beyond his own space tourism does he bring to the table.
Speaker 7: Well, I'm looking forward to it, you'd be quite honest
Speaker 7: with you. The thing that caught me off guard at
Speaker 7: first was Oh, this guy's going to buy these flights.
Speaker 7: But then like a second later he said, and we're
Speaker 7: going to raise a fast amount of money for Saint Jude,
Speaker 7: And I go, all right, that's my sort of guy.
Speaker 7: You know, you take the space exploration, you take non
Speaker 7: traditional people up there, and you go out of your
Speaker 7: way and every way possible to make a good thing
Speaker 7: on Earth elsewhere in an unrelated sector, come along with
Speaker 7: it and hope and inspire and all that sort of stuff.
Speaker 7: So that that got me as a fan right off
Speaker 7: the bat. He's gone twice. He puts his money where
Speaker 7: his mouth is. He started his own company, so I mean,
Speaker 7: you know, rich people tend to figure out how to
Speaker 7: do things, and he's got sort of a raw enthusiasm
Speaker 7: that reminds me a bit of Jim Bridenstein, who is
Speaker 7: the administrator to back you know where they just really want.
Speaker 7: They got the whole Star Trek, star Wars, let's explore
Speaker 7: the universe things, So you need other skills they'll bring
Speaker 7: other people in to help them. But having the raw
Speaker 7: I want to go explore space thing embedded in your
Speaker 7: head is you know, really important and he's got it
Speaker 7: in spades.
Speaker 4: Okay, Well, this is nice to hear something good come
Speaker 4: out of this conversation. Yeah, is this going to be
Speaker 4: the end of the space launch system by the time
Speaker 4: DOGE is done?
Speaker 7: You know what again, if they if they cancel that,
Speaker 7: more people will be off, you know, out of work,
Speaker 7: which you know again, work is work, but you got
Speaker 7: you know, do we want to go back to the moon? Okay?
Speaker 7: Is the SOLS the best way to do it? Well,
Speaker 7: it was mandated as it is by Congress, it's cost
Speaker 7: many billions more than it should, it's many years late,
Speaker 7: and are there other ways to do it?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 7: Elon Musk is making these big rockets like corn silos
Speaker 7: in Texas, and if he blows one up, he says, Okay,
Speaker 7: I got three more to go.
Speaker 6: So maybe we have a different way of going to
Speaker 6: do things.
Speaker 7: And if we really want to go to the moon
Speaker 7: and go elsewhere, maybe we need to bite the bullet
Speaker 7: and say, you know, we thought that was the way
Speaker 7: to do it, but we've got a better way now
Speaker 7: and again, every every SpaceX rocket, every Blue Origin rocket
Speaker 7: is built with a lot of X NASA people were
Speaker 7: pioneering done by NASA, So you got to be hoping
Speaker 7: that NASA's had a real impact on what we're.
Speaker 10: Going to do.
Speaker 4: So wait, all right, so we do we have some
Speaker 4: short term pain here that ends up being a long
Speaker 4: term solution. Maybe this is all good for NASA, Keith,
Speaker 4: Is that what I've learned in talking with you, Well.
Speaker 7: When I left NASA, I had to quit, but they
Speaker 7: fired everybody I worked in the space Station Freedom program,
Speaker 7: which if you look at the space station now, it's
Speaker 7: all the stuff we built, just with different names on it.
Speaker 7: But it's not fun when you're on the street and
Speaker 7: your friends are on the street. But NASA rebounded, and
Speaker 7: you would hope that NASA learns from these things. It's,
Speaker 7: you know, never a good reason to do something bad,
Speaker 7: but you kind of make it worse if you don't
Speaker 7: learn from it. I would hope that the NASA that
Speaker 7: results from this, and the contractors community and.
Speaker 9: The science community.
Speaker 6: Yeah, if you parse.
Speaker 7: It down, will you have a clear way of doing things?
Speaker 7: If that's what comes from this, then okay, we'll look
Speaker 7: back and say, I guess it was good after all.
Speaker 7: But if it doesn't.
Speaker 6: From NASA, watch Keith Cowing.
Speaker 4: Are you a Star Trek Guy or a Star Wars Guy,
Speaker 4: Keith Star Trek, Star Trek Guy.
Speaker 6: I should have I should have known that. I'm sorry
Speaker 6: I even asked you.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on
Speaker 1: Apple Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2: To with tariffs threatened against Columbia, then pulled back, threatened
Speaker 2: against Canada and Mexico, delayed until a few weeks from now,
Speaker 2: implemented on all Chinese imports, implemented on steel and aluminum imports.
Speaker 2: And as we've heard from the President repeatedly, more very
Speaker 2: well could be coming, including what he floated last week.
Speaker 2: April second, he's looking at auto.
Speaker 6: Tariffs, Joe, And that was all off the top of
Speaker 6: her head. With more where this could come from.
Speaker 4: Yeah, April second, we didn't want to do April Fool's Day.
Speaker 4: The idea of auto tariffs going into effect though really
Speaker 4: causing the question the way that our auto companies make
Speaker 4: the vehicles going back and forth across the border, complicating
Speaker 4: the idea when it comes to Mexico and Canada. And
Speaker 4: remember what Jim Farley said, it would blow a hole
Speaker 4: in the US industry that we've ever seen. You paid
Speaker 4: a visit to Capitol Hill to deliver that message last week.
Speaker 4: It makes you wonder the impact of reciprocal tariffs as well, if.
Speaker 6: They come around to your point? Right, this all comes together?
Speaker 6: Was that what I added?
Speaker 2: Getting something?
Speaker 6: There's always another. John Bazella knows all about this.
Speaker 4: He is the President's CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation,
Speaker 4: So what must be going through his minds as ev
Speaker 4: incentives are also rescinded? John, It's good to see you.
Speaker 6: Welcome.
Speaker 4: I don't know how you make sense of all of this.
Speaker 4: We can barely get through an intro to talk to
Speaker 4: somebody like you because there's so much going on. What
Speaker 4: is really about to happen when it comes to auto tariffs?
Speaker 4: Not the bluster but the reality.
Speaker 11: Yeah, well, first of all, thanks thanks for having me.
Speaker 11: Here's what I think Jim was getting at. When you
Speaker 11: look at the automotive industry here in the United States,
Speaker 11: for over twenty five years now, we have had a
Speaker 11: seamless North American industry. As you mentioned just a minute ago,
Speaker 11: joe parts, components, and vehicles flow back and forth across
Speaker 11: the border. In some cases components several times before they
Speaker 11: become a finished vehicle. This benefits American consumers. We get
Speaker 11: more affordable vehicles, we get more choice, and the US
Speaker 11: ends up more competitive as a result of it. So
Speaker 11: here's what I think Jim's getting at. If you look
Speaker 11: at the scale of this industry, it's massive, these plants
Speaker 11: and you've been in them, millions of feet square feet
Speaker 11: under roof. These are massive assets. You cannot move these
Speaker 11: assets overnight. You can't shift supply chains overnight, you can't
Speaker 11: move production overnight. So what could happen is costs could
Speaker 11: increase on consumers before jobs come into the United States.
Speaker 11: That's the dilemma, that's the challenge of tariffs that appear
Speaker 11: out of nowhere.
Speaker 2: Well, but the President would argue that the tariffs are
Speaker 2: intended to protect American industry, protect American made cars. So
Speaker 2: what is the appropriate way to do that? If it's
Speaker 2: not through policies like this.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 11: Well, first of all, I think President Trump really understands
Speaker 11: the importance of a healthy and competitive auto industry. I
Speaker 11: have no doubt about that. I listened carefully during the campaign.
Speaker 11: We've had an opportunity to talk to the team. I
Speaker 11: feel like he understands this, this importance, the importance of
Speaker 11: a competitive auto industry. I think the way to focus
Speaker 11: on this is through discussions like well, that will occur
Speaker 11: when USMCA, for example, is reviewed, in other words, the
Speaker 11: trade agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada. So during
Speaker 11: that process, these are the types of conversations that should
Speaker 11: take place. What should those parties to the agreement and
Speaker 11: do in order to comply with duty free trade? Those
Speaker 11: are reasonable questions, and I think that's the ultimately what
Speaker 11: Jim saying is, look, we need a review.
Speaker 4: Sticking with Jim Farley for a minute. After he came
Speaker 4: to Washington, he warmed up to the idea of putting
Speaker 4: tariffs on imported vehicles. We applaud President Trump's idea to
Speaker 4: look at all vehicle imports into the US an important
Speaker 4: step forward, which now then calls it the question what's
Speaker 4: an important vehicle? Because We just talked about American cars
Speaker 4: going back and forth across the border for various stages
Speaker 4: of assembly.
Speaker 6: Does that count.
Speaker 9: Yeah, it's a great question.
Speaker 11: Right there is no one hundred percent US vehicle or
Speaker 11: one hundred percent Mexican made vehicle or one hundred percent
Speaker 11: Canadian made vehicle.
Speaker 6: And you've got Europeans assembling cars here in the US.
Speaker 9: So it's it's a to me.
Speaker 11: The big question is do we need and want a
Speaker 11: healthy and competitive auto industry in the United States?
Speaker 9: And I think the answer to that, and I think the.
Speaker 11: President agrees, is yes, because it's important to our economic
Speaker 11: security and it's important to our national security. And when
Speaker 11: you think about how cutting edge this the manufacturing sector is,
Speaker 11: the automotive sector is in the United States, and how
Speaker 11: important technology is to vehicles and how important that technology
Speaker 11: is to our national defense, I think that you really
Speaker 11: do need to focus on competitiveness, and I.
Speaker 9: Think that's what this administration will do.
Speaker 2: And is it competitiveness specifically with China that you're most
Speaker 2: focused on.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I think that's a great point. When you look
Speaker 11: at what's happening. There is an intense global competition for
Speaker 11: automotive investments and It's really happening in three areas China clearly.
Speaker 9: The United States, and Europe.
Speaker 11: And it's important that the US is competitive in this dynamic.
Speaker 11: Right now, what you see in China, and I was
Speaker 11: recently there just before the end of the year, what
Speaker 11: you see there is an industry with massive overcapacity, lots
Speaker 11: of government subsidies, and a desire to export all that
Speaker 11: extra capacity. And the question is is this trade that's
Speaker 11: likely to happen, is it fair right or is this
Speaker 11: anti competitive behavior? And so that is really going to
Speaker 11: be an important question for policymakers when we.
Speaker 6: Talk about China.
Speaker 4: We're not going to see BYD selling cars here anytime soon,
Speaker 4: I can only imagine. But what will be the impact,
Speaker 4: with that said, of the lifting or the rescinding of
Speaker 4: EV tax credits and other incentives. Elon Musk is doing
Speaker 4: pretty well at Tesla right now, but you've also got
Speaker 4: Jim Farley, Mary Barra and others trying to break into
Speaker 4: this Nason business.
Speaker 6: What does this bring to the table.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I think context is really important here. There's two
Speaker 11: bits of context I think we have to understand when
Speaker 11: we talk about the EV incentives. The first piece of
Speaker 11: context is we right now as an auto industry in
Speaker 11: the United States, fast face significant challenging automotive regulations emission standards.
Speaker 11: Those really challenging emission standards both set at the federal
Speaker 11: level in the Biden administration and by the state of California.
Speaker 11: And that's a crazy land story we can get into.
Speaker 11: Those were based on the assumption that ev incentives would stay. Yes,
Speaker 11: so if you take the incentives out, my question to
Speaker 11: you would be.
Speaker 9: Did the standards go away? And so that's context number one.
Speaker 9: Context number two.
Speaker 11: What we were just talking about the importance of a
Speaker 11: healthy and competitive industry in this competition with China and
Speaker 11: the Chinese automotive industry. I would make an argument that
Speaker 11: the incentives are important in both sets of contexts. In
Speaker 11: other words, they are important in a context where you've
Speaker 11: got really aggressive standards, and they're particularly important as we
Speaker 11: transform our industrial base to remain competitive and become competitive
Speaker 11: with China.
Speaker 2: Well, and you just in your first answer talking to
Speaker 2: us about China, talked about how China heavily subsidizes its own,
Speaker 2: yeah automotive industry. So is it a mistake for the
Speaker 2: US to be pulling back subsidies of any kind? Do
Speaker 2: we actually need more of them.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I look, I think this is exactly the question.
Speaker 11: This is exactly the question. If you believe in a healthy,
Speaker 11: competitive auto industry, and you believe that that industry, that
Speaker 11: competitive and healthy in industry is supportive of our economic
Speaker 11: and national security, you should look at a balance between
Speaker 11: regulation and policy, and in this case, policy would be incentives.
Speaker 9: There are.
Speaker 11: These incentives are not just the consumer incentives that a
Speaker 11: lot of people have focused on. In other words, money
Speaker 11: at available at the dealership to support the purchase of
Speaker 11: an EV. We're talking about incentives to transform the industrial base,
Speaker 11: to build the automotive industry of the future. That is
Speaker 11: really important for this industry.
Speaker 4: What does this mean for innovation at a time when
Speaker 4: we realize, you know what, most people are buying hybrids,
Speaker 4: not evs, right, and that Elon Musk may not have
Speaker 4: a consumer priced vehicle anytime soon.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 9: Hybrids are a form of electrified vehicle. Right. And I
Speaker 9: love this.
Speaker 11: Idea that consumers have choice, and I think that's essential.
Speaker 11: They should have a choice a gasoline vehicle if it
Speaker 11: fits their wants and needs, a hybrid, a plug in hybrid,
Speaker 11: or a battery.
Speaker 6: Keep up with China when it comes to innovation, that's
Speaker 6: the key.
Speaker 11: The key is you need an innovative and vibrant auto
Speaker 11: industry and so to be able to have choice, choice,
Speaker 11: including electrified vehicles, is going to be really important. So
Speaker 11: you've got to build an industrial base to have that
Speaker 11: innovation and choice.
Speaker 2: Well, and obviously we've talked about and you were talking
Speaker 2: about these large facilities that actually assemble these cars, but
Speaker 2: what about battery technology. What about the chips that need
Speaker 2: to power these cars that can do us so much
Speaker 2: more from a technological basis. Talk to us about kind
Speaker 2: of those lower rungs of this.
Speaker 11: Yeah, and they're not much lower, right if you think
Speaker 11: about it. I mean, the battery is critical to the vehicle,
Speaker 11: a hybrid vehicle as well as a battery electric vehicle,
Speaker 11: and so are these computer chips. Vehicles are effectively consumers
Speaker 11: excuse me, computers on wheels, and consumers recognize this. And
Speaker 11: so you need to have access to cutting edge technology.
Speaker 11: That means computer chips, semiconductors, and it also means the
Speaker 11: latest battery technology. And so investments. Now, should government do
Speaker 11: all of this, absolutely not, But the innovators are leading
Speaker 11: and so you see chipset manufacturers investing in the United States.
Speaker 11: You see battery manufacturers investing in the United States. The
Speaker 11: question is for some period of time, should there be
Speaker 11: some supportive policy that encourages those investments while the market
Speaker 11: remains choppy. The market is going to be spiky for
Speaker 11: some period of time as we transform to these new technologies.
Speaker 4: We're almost out of time. When do we get ROBOTAXI?
Speaker 4: When does self driving happen? For real?
Speaker 6: Let's get to the innovation, the fun stuff for him.
Speaker 11: Well, look, I think you can go to some places
Speaker 11: and get into robotax and right now, absolutely, you know
Speaker 11: what the problem is with highly automated vehicles. The holdup
Speaker 11: is not the engineering or the science. The holdup is
Speaker 11: the policy. Once again, we need a national policy that
Speaker 11: recognizes again same idea, the competitive importance of this NEXTOK
Speaker 11: technology in the US market.
Speaker 2: So is this when we're kind of talking about that
Speaker 2: knowing that Donald Trump and part campaigned on deregulating, on
Speaker 2: making things like permitting easier, that's all part and parcel the.
Speaker 6: Way you're talking.
Speaker 9: Yeah, Oh, I think absolutely.
Speaker 11: What I saw in the first Trump administration was a
Speaker 11: welcoming of this type of technology and flexible tools in
Speaker 11: the Department of Transportation toolbox to encourage those technologies. I
Speaker 11: look forward to those conversations with this set of regulators.
Speaker 2: Is there a safety trade off there if you deregulate
Speaker 2: too much?
Speaker 9: Absolutely not. There can't be a safety trade off. Absolutely.
Speaker 11: Safety has to be first and foremost in the minds
Speaker 11: of what we do, and I think that's one of
Speaker 11: the benefits.
Speaker 9: Of highly automated vehicle technology is more safety.
Speaker 4: I just want to know when I can read on
Speaker 4: my way to work. I don't want to even look
Speaker 4: out the window. I want the car to drive me
Speaker 4: to work. That's what I'm getting at here. You want
Speaker 4: one of these, right.
Speaker 11: I would love one of those now. By the way,
Speaker 11: in our commutes in Washington, d C.
Speaker 4: That's a lot of time. It's a massive productivity story. Also,
Speaker 4: the car would drive my seventeen year old. The seventeen
Speaker 4: year old would not drive the car, something that I
Speaker 4: think masurance company wants.
Speaker 11: We are half joking, but I know you're serious. I
Speaker 11: as we're talking about productivity gains, we're also talking about
Speaker 11: access to personal mobility for people who can't drive.
Speaker 6: How about that not to mention safety. I guess while
Speaker 6: we're out of here.
Speaker 4: You've got a lot to figure out in the next
Speaker 4: couple of years. To please get back to.
Speaker 6: Us on the April.
Speaker 4: Maybe I love it that that's true. You should be available.
Speaker 4: John Bozzella, president's CEO, Alliance for Automotive Innovation. Great to
Speaker 4: meet you and thank you for bringing your experience in
Speaker 4: point of view to us here.
Speaker 6: At the table. Thanks for listening to the Balance of
Speaker 6: Power podcast.
Speaker 4: Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 4: or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
Speaker 4: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern
Speaker 4: at Bloomberg dot com.